Case Summary (G.R. No. 191366)
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Sections 11, 13, and 21
Factual Background
On September 2, 2006, at about 12:45 PM, a confidential tip reached Police Community Precinct II that a “pot session” was underway in Rafael Gonzales’s residence. Officers proceeded without a warrant. At the gate, they arrested one occupant leaving through a side door. Inside, they found the four other respondents in a room with open plastic sachets and used aluminum foil allegedly containing shabu residue. All were arrested; paraphernalia and residues were seized and submitted for laboratory examination.
Prosecution’s Evidence
– Testimony of PO1 Azardon: entry based solely on an anonymous tip, discovery of sachets and foil in plain view, arrest of all occupants.
– Seizure turned over to P/Insp. Maranion, who conducted chemical analysis: 115 sachets, 11 rolled foils, and 49 cut foils tested; all sachets, 11 rolled foils, and 27 cut foils positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
– Drug tests on accused (except the first arrestee) were positive for methamphetamine use.
Defense’s Account
Respondents argued they were wandering in the subdivision seeking a paint supplier, not engaged in any pot session. They denied knowledge of the seized items and claimed the police planted paraphernalia.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC found the four appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 13 in relation to Sec. 11, RA 9165). Each was sentenced to life imprisonment, ₱500,000 fine, and forfeiture of seized items. The case against the first arrestee was dismissed.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the RTC, concluding constructive possession was sufficiently proven. It acknowledged minor lapses in compliance with Section 21 chain‐of‐custody rules but held the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved.
Issues on Appeal
- Legality of warrantless entry, arrest, and search
- Sufficiency of probable cause based on the tip
- Inadmissibility of evidence obtained from an illegal search
- Breakdown in the chain of custody of seized items
Analysis – Unlawful Arrest and Seizure
– No valid exception to the warrant requirement applied: the anonymous tip lacked indicia of reliability or personal knowledge.
– The officers had no personal knowledge or basis for probable cause to enter, arrest, or seize.
– Plain-view doctrine inapplicable: there was no prior lawful intrusion, and the discovery was not truly inadvertent.
– Under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 113, warrantless arrest requires probable cause grounded on personal observations or circumstances; neither was present.
– Evidence seized during the illegal entry is inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Analysis – Chain of Custody
– Section 21, RA 9165 mandates immediate inventory and photography of confiscated items in the presence of the accused (or counsel), media, DOJ representative, and an elected official. No such inventory or photographs were made.
– Seized items were not properly marked at the time of confiscation; l
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191366)
Facts of the Case
- On September 2, 2006, a concerned citizen reported a pot session at the house of Rafael Gonzales in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City.
- Police Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1 Azardon), Police Officer 1 Alejandro Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the SWAT team responded without a search warrant.
- At the gated premises, they arrested Roland Doria exiting through a side door and proceeded to enter the house.
- Inside a room, they found Gonzales, Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, and Rezin Martinez surprised by the police presence.
- On a table were open plastic sachets with shabu residue, rolled aluminum foil, and cut aluminum foil.
- The four accused were arrested, brought to the police precinct, and the items were seized and later submitted for laboratory examination.
Version of the Prosecution
- The seizure occurred around 12:45 PM on September 2, 2006, at the Police Community Precinct II.
- Items turned over to P/Insp. Lady Ellen Maranion, forensic chemical officer at the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory.
- Laboratory tests showed all 115 plastic sachets, 11 rolled foil pieces, and 27 of 49 cut foil pieces positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- A confirmatory drug test found the accused—except Doria—positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- Prosecution relied principally on PO1 Azardon’s uncontradicted testimony and the unbroken chain of custody as established in station records and laboratory reports.
Version of the Defense
- Accused Martinez, Dizon, and R. Martinez claimed they were searching for a man named Apper on Arellano Street to procure painting materials for a jeepney.
- They encountered Gonzales casually, conversed, and then were suddenly surrounded by five to seven policemen.
- Alleged warrantless arrest without probable cause.
- They were handcuffed, brought to Perez market precinct, and charged with sniffing shabu despite their alibi.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- Dismissed the case against Roland Doria on demurrer to evidence.
- On February 13, 2008, found Martinez, Dizon, R. Martinez, and Gonzales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (possession during social gathering).
- Imposed life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 each, plus costs; ordered forfeiture of seized items.
- Held that conspiracy and constructive possession were established; credited PO1 Azardon’s testimony over defenses of denial and alibi.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- On August 7, 2009, affirmed the RTC decision.
- Found evidence sufficient to prove constructive possession.
- Recognized procedural lapses under Section 21 of RA 9165